Evaluating user experience ingreen buildings in relation toworkplace culture and context

Zosia BrownInstitute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability,University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Raymond J. ColeSchool of Architecture and Landscape Architecture,

University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and

John Robinson and Hadi DowlatabadiInstitute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability,University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Abstract

Purpose – This paper aims to explore the relationship between green building design and workplacedesign practice, and to examine the role of organizational culture in shaping design and operationdecisions with consequence for user experience.

Design/methodology/approach – A literature review and introduction of key concepts establishthe foundation for the research and provide a context for interpreting results. Empirical findings arepresented from a pre- and post-occupancy evaluation of a company’s move to a new headquartersbuilding designed both to shift organizational culture and to meet environmental objectives.

Findings – The paper demonstrates that, while there are potentially significant gains to be madefrom integrating green building with workplace design strategies from the outset, there are manyother factors beyond the quality of the space, which may play a role in shaping user experience. Linksare drawn between improved occupant comfort, health and productivity in the new headquartersbuilding, and organizational culture and contextual factors accompanying the move. The findingsraise a number of important questions and considerations for organizational and workplace research,and post-occupancy evaluation of buildings.

Research limitations/implications – The research and findings focus on the experience andcontext of one company’s move to a new headquarters building and cannot be extrapolated. Given themainstreaming and merging of green building design with workplace design practice, more researchand studies are needed to advance this important line of inquiry.

Originality/value – The paper brings together the two agendas of workplace design and greenbuilding design, which have until very recently progressed along separate paths.

Keywords Environmental management, Organizational culture, Customer satisfaction, Office layout

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThe benefits of green building[1] to the organizations and individuals who inhabitthem are the subject of increasing attention and research. Green building strategies

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-2772.htm

Funding for this work was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Counciland the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions.

Evaluating userexperience

225

FacilitiesVol. 28 No. 3/4, 2010

pp. 225-238q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0263-2772DOI 10.1108/02632771011023168

have been linked to gains in occupant comfort, health and productivity, as well as toorganizational success through improved quality of work life, enhanced relationshipswith stakeholders, enhanced community livability, and the ability to market topro-environmental consumers (Heerwagen, 2000). Green buildings also have thepotential to shape and reinforce organizational culture, through imbuing values andbeliefs around the human connection to nature and sustainable patterns of living,offering greater personal control and responsibility to occupants to shape theirimmediate environment, and fostering a collective sense of responsibility and pride forthe organization and building (Cole et al., 2008).

Much of the evidence on the performance of green building in-use stems from earlyadopter projects where the notion of “green” was considered to be front-and-centre inthe design and operation priorities. With green building moving into mainstream,office buildings are now incorporating “green” into the workplace in much more subtleand integrated ways. The contemporary workplace is expected to provide a whole hostof benefits including a reassuring atmosphere, compensation for the abstraction ofwork, protection of workers from stress, unification of the organization, expression oforganizational values, motivation and mobilization of staff, promotion of sociabilityand cooperation, and reflection of a company’s desired image (Collard and DeHerde,2001). Changes in the twenty-first century including new business processes, newphilosophies of spatial organization, and advances in computing andtelecommunication, have led to a shift in viewing the workspace as a backdrop forwork to an active support for getting work done (Vischer, 2008).

Current trends in workplace design include: a greater emphasis on flexibility, bothin work schedules and organization of space, as the assumption of permanentindividual ownership of workstations is replaced by increasingly mobile workers(Worthington, 2006); success measured more commonly in terms of the attraction andretention of staff rather than absolute efficiency (Tanis and Duffy, 1999); and buildingdesign and internal arrangement of workspace reflecting an increasing effort to takeinto account a firm’s operation and corporate culture (Goodrich, 1986; Haworth, 2000).Each of these factors can fundamentally shape how individuals, groups and theorganization operate, and the resulting potential gains in workplace satisfaction andproductivity can be difficult to disentangle from those due to green building factors.

The two agendas of workplace design and green building design have for the mostpart progressed along separate paths. As Heerwagen et al. (1998) suggest “emerginginterests in workplace productivity, the workplace of the future and energy efficiencyare all proceeding with little connection or common goals”. And yet, organizational andgreen building factors are highly interrelated, some would even argue dependant onone another for success, in the sense that the benefits of both are more likely to occurwhen the building and organization are treated as an integrated system from the outset(Heerwagen, 2000). By encompassing both environmental and social considerations,such integration may be thought of as a form of “sustainable” (as opposed to “green”)building design process.

This paper explores this important new area of research, linking workplace design,organizational culture and green building in evaluating user experience in buildings. Itcenters around a Canadian company’s move to a new headquarter building explicitlydesigned to both shift organizational culture and to meet environmental objectives.Post-occupancy evaluations (POEs) conducted pre and post-move allowed for the

F28,3/4

226

unique opportunity to assess physical, organizational and cultural changes thatoccurred as a result of the move, and how they relate to gains observed in comfort andproductivity of staff. The findings have relevance for building designers, owners,operators and end users striving to realize the combined benefits of green andworkplace design.

Study descriptionThe two headquarter office buildings, both located in Toronto, Ontario, are designatedin the paper as HQ1 (old building) and HQ2 (new building). HQ1 is a conventionallydesigned building leased from a property management company and characterized byclosed offices and cubicles, while HQ2 is a “green” designed, custom-built facilitycharacterized by an extensive open plan office layout. Table I compares key buildingattributes and properties for HQ1 and HQ2.

The company is family-owned and staff feel strong levels of personal attachment tothe brand, the organization and to other members of the staff[2]. It moved from HQ1 toHQ2 in the Fall of 2008, and the research reported below was conducted six monthsprior to and five months after the move.

Old facility: HQ1HQ1 is a 16 300m2, six-storey traditional office building, located along a busy road in asuburb north of Toronto (Figure 1). Built in 1974, the building is concrete constructionwith sealed, reflective-glazed windows, and conditioned through a central forced airventilation and cooling system, and radiant perimeter heating. The building has beenregularly upgraded by the property management company to incorporate energyefficient fixtures and system upgrades. The property management company is alsoresponsible for building operation and maintenance, complaints resolution,renovations, and exterior landscaping.

Home to 382 employees, HQ1 served as the central location for company operations,information technology, real estate, marketing, human resources, finance, andaccounting. Organizational culture in HQ1 centered on the value and responsibility ofthe individual staff member in helping the company achieve success, exemplifiedthrough the company slogan “The difference is you”. The interior workplace designconsisted of a combination of cubicle desks in the building core (8ft-high partitions,three to four sides closure), and closed offices along the perimeter typically occupied byhigher level managers. Staff members’ workstations were organized by department interms of floor number and seating arrangement. Board rooms were centrally locatedand closed off to the rest of the staff to maximize privacy. Overall, the workplace

Building properties HQ1 HQ2

Size 16,300 m2 9,300 m2

No. of floors 6 2Year of completion 1974 2008Tenancy Leased facility Custom-built facilityNo. of occupants 382 216Green design n/a LEED-Silver standardWorkplace design Closed offices and cubicles Open plan layout

Table I.Comparison of building

attributes and propertiesfor HQ1 and HQ2

Evaluating userexperience

227

design and culture embodied by HQ1 could be characterized as private, hierarchical,low-interaction and individually focused.

New facility: HQ2HQ2 is a 9,300m2, two-storey green office building, located along a major highwayapproximately the same distance from the downtown core as HQ1 (Figure 2). Althoughaccessible by public transit, most employees at HQ2 drive to work, as with the previous

Figure 1.Old headquarters buildingprior to the move

Figure 2.New headquartersbuilding after the move

F28,3/4

228

building. Completed in 2008, the building was designed to LEED-NC Silver standard,with key sustainability features including: extensive natural lighting, views to theoutdoors for 90 percent of spaces, daylight and occupancy sensors, high efficiencylighting fixtures, CO2 monitoring, low-emission materials and finishes, water efficientfixtures, and native vegetation landscaping. While custom designed and built, thebuilding remains leased from the development company who are also responsible forfacilities management.

The building was designed to accommodate the same staff and departmentalgroups as in HQ1, with the exception of the IT department which was re-located to anoff-site facility at the time of the move. However, significant cuts to the companyoperating budget meant that roughly 40 percent of the headquarters staff was maderedundant shortly after the move to HQ2, leaving a remainder of 216 employees in thebuilding.

With the move to HQ2, the company used the opportunity to promote a neworganizational culture centered on the collective rather than the individual, along withthe introduction of new company slogan “everyone is special”. The building frontentrance expresses a warm and welcoming feeling, with sliding doors opening onto alarge closet for visitors’ coats, and bright colours contrasting with subdued beiges andgreys in the interior design. A waterfall located in the atrium provides visual andacoustic benefits, and a self-serve coffee bar offers free beverages to employeesthroughout the day. The building also houses a 24-hour gym and fitness facility,offering a variety of exercise classes to staff and providing day-lockers and showers.

The most striking difference between HQ2 and HQ1 is the workplace design, nowcharacterized as one large open plan office. The majority of staff members (80 percent)sit at workstations on the ground floor, arranged in inter-connected desks (five to 12people per hub) with below eye-level partitions. There is no differentiation inworkstation size or location based on hierarchy; the executive team sit with the rest ofthe staff. Meeting rooms located along the south perimeter have glass walls tomaximize transparency. There are a number of collaborative workstationsinterspersed among the desk hubs, as well as quiet spaces for concentrated work.Sound masking is provided by white noise generators combined with backgroundradio playing throughout the building. Overall the workplace design andorganizational culture embodied by HQ2 may be characterized as transparent,egalitarian, high interaction, and collective focussed, a significant shift from the cultureof HQ1.

MethodsBuilding users were surveyed in the spring of 2008 (HQ1) and 2009 (HQ2) using theBuilding Use Studies (BUS) occupant questionnaire (UBT, 2008 version). The BUSsurvey gives respondents an opportunity to rate and comment on building design,work requirements, comfort (temperature, air quality, noise and lighting), health andproductivity. Widely used in post-occupancy evaluations around the world, the BUSsurvey has led to the development of national and international building performancebenchmarks, which can be used to situate the building performance within a broadercontext. The survey was modified to include questions regarding occupants’knowledge of the building, engagement with personal control, and perceptions oforganizational culture[3].

Evaluating userexperience

229

The survey was conducted via a web-based version and ran for approximately oneweek in each building. Response rates for the survey were 37 percent for the HQ1 (145responses, confidence interval 0.06) and 48 percent for HQ2 (104 responses, confidenceinterval ¼ 0.07). In both buildings, the majority of respondents were aged 30 or over(76 percent in HQ1, 87 percent in HQ2) and female (60 percent in HQ1, 56 percent inHQ2). In HQ1, 58 percent of respondents had worked in the building for one year ormore while 42 percent had worked there for under a year, while in HQ2 all respondentshad worked in the building for less than a year. Since the survey was completedanonymously, it was unknown how many and which respondents of the HQ2 surveyhad also completed the HQ1 survey.

Owing to limited resources, it was not possible to conduct a full assessment ofcorporate culture (e.g. as per Goodrich, 1986) however, the human resources manager,who had held this post in both HQ1 and HQ2, was interviewed to gain insight intostrategic aspects of the organizational culture and workplace environment. In addition,company publications (e.g. brochures, and tour scripts for the new building) werereviewed for identification of recurring themes and important values and beliefs, andthe workplace environment was observed directly through a guided buildingwalk-through and two days spent working in each building.

ResultsResults from post-occupancy evaluations conducted both pre (HQ1) and post move(HQ2) buildings allowed for the assessment of human and environmental performancein terms of occupant satisfaction with workplace design, comfort, productivity, healthand wellbeing, and overall performance compared with benchmark[4]. In addition,occupants’ perceptions of how organizational culture influence their behaviour andexpectations of the workplace were examined.

Overall satisfaction with buildingOccupants in HQ2 were highly satisfied with the building in terms of its overall design,ability to meet needs, image, facilities and furnishings (Figure 3). Satisfaction ratingsfor these variables were significantly higher than had been reported in HQ1, andexceeded the BUS benchmark. Open-ended comments suggested occupantsappreciated the aesthetic quality of the architecture and interior design of the newbuilding, the brightness, openness and views to outside and the availability of meetingrooms. Some respondents complained about the lack of printers, and not havingenough storage at their desk for files and personal items. (The latter may have relatedto the introduction of a “Clean Desk” policy in HQ2, designating a central storage areafor staff to keep personal items such as coats, boots, umbrellas, while requiring theymaintain their desk areas clear of clutter). Overall, satisfaction with the building designof HQ2 ranked in the 83rd percentile of benchmarked buildings, and related to bothworkplace design (workstation layout, meeting rooms, storage) as well as greenaspects (daylighting, views to outside).

ComfortOverall, comfort was on average 36 percent higher in HQ2 compared with HQ1(Figure 4). The greatest gains in comfort were with respect to lighting (70 percentsatisfied) and air quality (48 percent satisfied) with numerous comments referring to

F28,3/4

230

the clean, fresh air and exceptional lighting conditions. A total of 44 percent weresatisfied with noise in HQ2 (slight improvement over HQ1) and only 36 percentsatisfied with thermal comfort (slight decline in satisfaction from HQ1). Commentssuggested that some found the background music and occasional loud conversations tobe distracting in HQ2, with 46 percent reporting too much indoor noise generally, and42 percent reporting too much noise from other colleagues specifically. With respect tothermal comfort, the majority of respondents in HQ2 found the temperatures to be too

Figure 3.Occupant satisfaction withworkplace design in HQ1

and HQ2

Figure 4.Occupant comfort in HQ1and HQ2 compared with

BUS benchmark

Evaluating userexperience

231

cold in the winter (69 percent). Since winter temperatures in Toronto did not differsignificantly between 2008 and 2009 (Environment Canada, 2009), this may have beendue to HVAC set-points in the building set too low, to accommodate a higher density ofoccupants than actually materialized (as a result of layoffs). Summer thermal comfortdata was unable to be collected, since respondents in HQ2 had not spent a full year inthe building at the time of survey.

Satisfaction with overall comfort in HQ2 ranked in the 68th percentile ofbenchmarked buildings, and related to aspects of both workplace design (open planconcept, acoustics) and green design (fresh air, daylighting). Gains in overall comfortfrom HQ1 to HQ2 ere greater than gains in satisfaction with individual comfortvariables. This finding may be expressed as a higher level of “forgiveness” ofoccupants in HQ2 compared to HQ1 (1.21 and 1.08 respectively). Forgiveness is ameasure of the amount of tolerance for chronic faults, derived by comparing meanvalues for overall comfort with mean values for specific comfort variables (UBT, 2008).The value for forgiveness resulting from occupant responses in HQ2 ranked thebuilding in the 95th percentile of benchmarked buildings, and suggests that occupantswere willing to tolerate more discrepancies in comfort in HQ2 than in HQ1 for thebenefits they perceived in the building overall.

Health and wellbeingRespondents were asked whether they felt more or less healthy when in the buildingcompared to their experience of using buildings in general. Overall, respondents feltmore healthy (41 percent healthier on average) and rated their overall sense ofwellbeing higher (24 percent improved on average) in HQ2 than in HQ1 (Figure 5).Reasons given included better air quality, improved physical health from use of thegym, improved moods from access to sunlight and the waterfall, and a general“feeling” that health and wellness are more of a priority in the new building.Occupants’ perceived health in HQ2 ranked the building in the 80th percentile of allbenchmark dataset buildings. It is unclear whether, at the time of the HQ1 survey, staffanticipated that there would be substantial lay-offs occurring within the year. If so, this

Figure 5.Occupants’ perceivedhealth and wellbeing inHQ1 and HQ2

F28,3/4

232

may also have contributed to the difference in sense of wellbeing between buildings.Thus, while reported improvements to health and wellbeing in HQ2 were in part areaction to green design features and improved indoor environmental quality,confounding factors resulting from the move, including psychological impacts of stafflayoffs, may also have influenced the post-occupancy findings.

Perceived productivityRespondents were asked to estimate how their productivity at work was increased ordecreased by the environmental conditions in the building, compared to their experience ofusing buildings in general[5]. Three quarters (73 percent) of respondents in HQ2 rated thebuilding as having a neutral or positive effect on their productivity compared to 39 percentin HQ1 (Figure 6). On average, respondents felt their productivity increased by 5 percentdue to environmental conditions in HQ2, representing a 12 percent gain in productivityfrom HQ1, where the average perceived affect on productivity was 27 percent.Respondents attributed gains in productivity to indoor environmental conditions (naturallight, clean air), tidiness of the workspace (in part due to the “Clean desk policy”), ease ofaccess to colleagues, and improved ability to communicate and collaborate from the openplan concept. It is possible that the major loss of perhaps the less effective colleagues alsohad an impact on reported productivity.

Workgroup size and personal controlResults for perceived productivity gains in the open plan office of HQ2 are in contrastto Leaman and Bordass (1999) and others who argue that workplace productivityimproves when workgroups are smaller and more integrated and individuals havepersonal control over their immediate environment as typically provided by cellularoffices. Occupants in HQ2 reported sharing their office or workstation on average with“4 to 5 others”, which was significantly higher compared to HQ1 ( p , 0.05), and yetsurprising given the open plan concept devoid of any noticeable subdivisions. This

Figure 6.Occupants’ perceived

productivity decrease andincrease in HQ1 and HQ2

Evaluating userexperience

233

suggests that the company structure and organization, in terms of working group size(by department, brand etc.) and reporting hierarchy, shaped occupant perception of theextent of their workspace more so than the open plan office itself.

In contrast, the availability of personal control over indoor environmental variableswas rated low in both HQ1 and HQ2 (average response “no control” to “low control”),ranking in the bottom 2-8 percent by variable of benchmarked buildings. Thefrequency with which occupants took an action to influence their immediateenvironment was also reportedly low in both buildings (average response “never” to“once/month”). This is not surprising given that in HQ1, lighting switches were one ofthe few forms of available personal control, while in HQ2 control over heating, cooling,lighting, ventilation and acoustics were all designed to be automated and programmedwith no manual override except during non-peak hours.

Environmental control – and users’ perception of control – is thought to affectworkers both in the physical/mechanical sense as well as the psychological sensethrough empowerment (Vischer, 2005). While half of the respondents in HQ1 ratedpersonal control over indoor environmental quality as being important to them, thisfraction declined in HQ2, particularly for those variables with which occupants’satisfaction had improved, i.e. lighting, cooling and air quality (Figure 7). Leaman(2003) compares personal control to other design strategies for managing indoorenvironmental quality including “fit and forget” (systems operating in the backgroundnormally without intervention) and “make habitual” (policy, ethics and value systemsthat implement and internalize control). Findings suggest that the automation ofcontrol had, to a great extent, become habitual to occupants of HQ1 allowing for arelatively easy transition into the open plan office of HQ2 when coupled with policyand culture validating this approach. However, when indoor conditions causeddiscomfort (e.g. winter thermal comfort in HQ2), occupants would like to have beenable to do something about it.

Organizational cultureRespondents were asked their opinions regarding how the organization’s implicit andexplicit workplace “rules” guided their behaviour. There was no significant difference

Figure 7.Availability andimportance of personalcontrols in HQ1 and HQ2

F28,3/4

234

between the number of days and hours worked in HQ1 and HQ2 (average 4.7days/week, 9 hours/day for both buildings), nor in the flexibility of arrival time at work(average response “somewhat to very flexible” for both buildings). Flexibility of dresscode was rated significantly higher in HQ1 compared to HQ2 ( p , 0.05), possiblyrelated to the open plan concept and sharing of workstation with more people in HQ2,including senior management. Overall levels of stress at work were the same acrossboth buildings (average response “somewhat stressful”), and there was no significantdifference between occupants’ level of attachment to the organization (averageresponse “somewhat to very attached”). It is possible that offsetting effects relating tothe staff layoffs and shift in organizational culture contributed to occupants’ responses.For example: the stress from moving to a new building and accommodating to thepressures of a reduced staff may have been offset by relief and validation of worthfrom personal retention in the company; and decline in attachment to the organizationdue to the constant shifting of culture and slogans may have been compensated for bythe appreciation of features and amenities in the new building.

Attribution of performance improvementsPerformance improvements in HQ2 over HQ1 were documented in the areas of comfort,health, wellbeing and productivity. Results from the post-occupancy evaluationsuggest that these were in part related to workplace design and organizational cultureaspects (e.g. open plan concept, high interaction, transparent, egalitarian values, and agreater emphasis on health and wellbeing) and in part related to green building aspects(e.g. daylighting, views to outdoors, improved ventilation, biophillic features).However, a number of other influential factors may also have played a role,complicating the attribution of performance improvements. These included:

(1) A high level of engagement of company managers in the building design, fit-outand handover, exemplified by:. an open plan concept trial set up on the 4th floor of HQ1 pre- move, intended

to acclimatize staff to the anticipated workplace design of HQ2; and. a staged move in to the new building, requiring all staff to engage in learning

sessions focussing on the workplace design and new office protocols.

(2) A concerted effort by the company to convey the new organizational culture, interms of values, beliefs and identity, through:. a tour guide script used to transition occupants into from HQ1 to HQ2

emphasized features such as the calming effect of the waterfall, wellnessaspects of the fitness centre, a quiet room intended for moments of personalreflection, as well as considerations for wellbeing and safety embedded indesign strategies throughout the building;

. the building design expressing organizational culture through explicitmeans (e.g. signage incorporating the new slogan and words such as“comfort”, “green building”) and implicit means (e.g. high transparency, highinteraction, people oriented); and

. implementation and enforcement of new in-house policies such as the CleanDesk Policy, uniform background music and combined with white noise, andgreater automation of control of indoor environmental quality.

Evaluating userexperience

235

(3) Significant layoffs of up to 40 percent of the workforce shortly after moving toHQ2, impacting:. perceived wellbeing and levels of stress, relating to the possible anticipation

of layoffs pre-move and relief/validation of worth from retention in theorganization post-move;

. perceived productivity, relating to pressures associated with working with areduced staff in HQ2 but potentially offset by the loss of perhaps lesseffective colleagues; and

. perceived workplace cultural aspects, including level of attachment to theorganization amidst layoffs and willingness to adopt new company valuesand slogans.

As Leaman and Bordass (1999, p. 5) suggest:

[. . .] buildings are complex systems made up of physical and human elements and their manyassociations, interactions, interfaces and feedbacks. Because of interdependencies, it is oftenfruitless to try and separate out different variables and treat them as ’independent’”.

The realization of organizational benefits in HQ2, in terms of gains in occupantcomfort, health, wellbeing and productivity, were related to the combinedimplementation of workplace design and green building design strategies. Thesestrategies were deployed against the backdrop of a company highly committed to thesuccessful transition into a new headquarter building and way of working, while at thesame time faced with having to cut the workforce. The outcome was overwhelminglypositive for HQ2, but the lessons learned are difficult to extrapolate beyond the casestudy. More research is needed combining pre and post-occupancy evaluation withcontextual and cultural analysis to better understand the relative contribution ofinfluential factors.

DiscussionThis paper provides a demonstration of the complex nature of user experience inbuildings, shaped in part by the characteristics and quality of the space, but alsoinfluenced by a host of other factors. Gains in occupant comfort, productivity, healthand wellbeing documented in a company’s move to a new headquarter buildingcoincided with a shift in workplace design and culture and an emphasis on greenbuilding, suggesting that when these aspects work together in synergistic ways thebenefits can be considerable. However, workplace design and green building strategiescan also interact in antagonistic ways, compromising the potential buildingperformance. Indoor environmental quality in green buildings has been known tocause occupant discomfort in key workplace attributes such as acoustics, lightingconditions and glare, leading to modifications to be made that clash with initial designintentions. Conversely, workplace design can compromise green building performanceby failing to take into account the operation of environmental systems and access tocontrol points when programming the use of space and arranging partitions, carpetand furniture. In addition, there are many other factors relating to organizationalculture and context which may play a role, some of which have been addressed here,some of which need to be taken into consideration in future studies.

F28,3/4

236

The findings reported raise a number of important considerations for organizationaland workspace research, and post-occupancy evaluation of green building:

(1) How much of the performance improvements attributed to green building areactually green building related, versus those due to organizationalculture/workplace design?

(2) Are certain organizational culture/workplace models more suited to greenbuilding design than others?

(3) What are the potential performance gains to be made from better integratinggreen building design with workplace design and organizational culture at theoutset of design?

(4) What kinds of demands will this integration place on owners, designers,facilities managers and users in future office buildings?

(5) What changes are necessary in post-occupancy evaluation to explicitly take intoconsideration cultural and contextual factors?

This paper begins to articulate some of the key issues arising from the mainstreamingand merging of green building design with workplace design practice. It explores therole of organizational culture in shaping and design and operation decisions, andhighlights the need for further research into realizing the combined opportunities fromintegrating green and workplace goals in the context of building design.

Notes

1. The term “green building” is defined and interpreted in many different ways, primarilyrelated to the range of performance issues addressed, but all green buildings typically strivefor a reduction in resource use, reduction in emissions and waste, and the improvement ofoccupant comfort and health. The definition of green building used in this paper relates tothe scope, emphasis and performance targets currently incorporated in voluntary greenbuilding rating systems such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEEDw).

2. For the purposes privacy, the company’s identity and several aspects of its organizationalstructure, culture and operations have been omitted in this paper.

3. Sample questions from the BUS occupant questionnaire (modified) are as follows:(1) All things considered, how would you rate the building design overall?(2) All things considered, how to you rate the overall comfort of the built environment?(3) In the building as a whole, do the facilities meet your needs?(4) Specifically, for the work that you carry out, how well do the facilities meet your needs?Please give examples of things which can hinder effective working?. . . and examples ofthings which usually work well?(5) Please estimate how you think your productivity at work is decreased or increased by theenvironmental conditions in the building?(6) Do you feel more or less healthy when you arein the building?(7) How would you describe your overall sense of wellbeing at work?. . . stress while atwork?. . . level of personal attachment to this organization?

4. Throughout the results section, “benchmarked dataset” and “benchmarked buildings” referto the 2008 BUS International Benchmark comprising 66 buildings from 16 differentcountries, the majority of which are new buildings and “green” designed.

5. Perceived productivity, asking occupants to self-assess their productivity at work, is one ofmany approaches used to evaluate the impact of the indoor environment on work output.

Evaluating userexperience

237

Perceived productivity, as defined in the BUS questionnaire, relies on the ability ofrespondents to compare their own building with “buildings in general”, which introduces adegree of bias into the results. Other more accurate measures of productivity include the useof performance metrics such as speed, accuracy and quality of work (where applicable), andthe evaluation of absenteeism and churn.

References

Cole, R.J., Robinson, J., Brown, Z. and O’Shea, M. (2008), “Re-contextualizing the notion ofcomfort”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 323-36.

Collard, B. and DeHerde, A. (2001), “Technology module 1: office building typology, Architectureet Climat. Mid-career education: solar energy in European office buildings”, available at:http://erg.ucd.ie/ (accessed 25 May 2009).

Environment Canada (2009), National Climate Data and Information Archive, available at: www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/canada_e.html (accessed 18 July 2009).

Goodrich, R.J. (1986), “Corporate culture and office design”, in Black, J.T., Roark, K.S. andSchwartz, L.S. (Eds), The Changing Office Workplace, The Urban Land Institute,Washington, DC, pp. 65-79.

Haworth (2000), “Hiring and keeping great people: the physical environment and corporateculture”, available at: www.brigholme.com (accessed 10 June 2009).

Heerwagen, J. (2000), “Green buildings, organizational success, and occupant productivity”,Building Research and Information, Vol. 28 Nos 5/6, pp. 353-67.

Heerwagen, J., Johnson, J., Brothers, P., Little, R. and Rosenfeld, A. (1998), “Energy effectivenessand the ecology of work: links to productivity and health”, Proceedings of the ACEEESummer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Asilomar, CA.

Leaman, A. (2003), “User needs and expectations”, in Cole, R. and Lorch, R. (Eds), Buildings,Culture and Environment, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp. 154-76.

Leaman, A. and Bordass, B. (1999), “Productivity in buildings: the ‘killer’ variables”, BuildingResearch and Information, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 4-19.

Tanis, J. and Duffy, F. (1999), “A vision of the new workplace revisited”, Site Selection Magazine,September.

Usable Buildings Trust (2008), Building Use Studies: 2-page Occupant Questionnaire 2008: Probeor Workplace Version, Usable Buildings Trust, York.

Vischer, J.C. (2005), Space Meets Status: Designing Workplace Performance, Taylor & Francis/Routledge, Oxford.

Vischer, J.C. (2008), “Towards an environmental psychology of workspace: how people areaffected by environments for work”, Architectural Science Review, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 97-109.

Worthington, J. (2006), Reinventing the Workplace, 2nd ed., Architectural Press, Oxford.

Corresponding authorZosia Brown can be contacted at: zbrown@ires.ubc.ca

F28,3/4

238

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints